Robert Reich has a good article on his blog about the different economic ideas of republicans and democrats.
Reagon is the classic symbol of republican ideals. Cut taxes for the rich, and they will invest more in the country, thus more jobs will be created. This was called trickle down economics.
Obama's program increases taxes on the top, and uses the proceeds to raise the living standards of average Americans by giving them lower taxes, better schools, and more affordable health insurance.
But Obamanomics is a commited to these forms of public investment. And there's good reason: In a global economy, capital moves to wherever it can get the best deal around the globe. That means capital and jobs go to nations that can promise high returns either because labor is cheap and taxes and regulations low, or because labor is highly productive -- well educated, healthy, and supported by modern infrastructure.
The only resource that's uniquely rooted in a national economy is its people -- their skills, insights, capacities to collaborate, and the transportation and communication systems that link them together. Everything else -- including capital, technology, designs, even plant and equipment -- can move around the globe with increasing ease.
This is a great point. In todays global economy we can cut taxes on the wealthy from her to 3009 but there is not gaurantee that they will build, and manufacture in our country. In fact if you read the rest of Reichs argument he goes on to prove how trickle down has not worked. US corporations that have been given takes breaks have not reinvested them into the company. The blue color workers salary has stagnated or gone down while the executive salary has climbed higher and higher for the past 30 years.
Yet the Left's approach is more sound. If we invest in transportation infastructure we can lure companies here. If we invest in education we lure companies here. If we invest in universal health care we take a burden off the company, and lure companies here.
Its odd that this last one is not more important for the right. They are extremely pro business. They dont support unions because unions can cost a corporation more money. Corporations go overseas to find cheaper labor, and less strict regulations to save money. A large part of corporate strategy is to cut cost. So one would conclude, following our line of reasoning that every major US corporation would be as supportive for Universal health care as they are anti union. Yet they are mostly quiet.
Maybe they are trying to protect one of their own, the healthcare corporations. But i doubt it. It seems like an avenue worth pursuing, "corporate america turns on the health care industry and supports obama's universal health care plan, and brings america back into the developed world."
So which side are you one,
do you beleive we need to get more money into the hands of the wealthy elite of the nation to spur manufacturing and economic boom, or
do you beleive we need to rebuild the foundation of the economy, infastructure, health, and education, things that will stay here for many years to come.